The North Sea Advisory Council NSAC...2015/03/11 · Page 1 NSAC Supported by The European...

NSAC Supported by TheEuropean Commission

The North Sea Advisory Council

NSAC

Meeting Report

Executive Committee MeetingThe Danish AgriFish AgencyNyropsgade 30Copenhagen11th March 2015

Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins Draft (5)

1 Welcome and Introductions

1.1 The chairman Niels Wichmann welcomed participants to the meeting. Hethanked Jakob Munkhoej Nielsen from the Danish Agriculture & FisheriesAgency for hosting the meeting at their offices in Copenhagen. A tour de tablefollowed.

1.2 The agenda for the meeting was adopted with the addition of a briefing on theMarket Advisory Council, to be presented under Any Other Business.

1.3 There were apologies from Caroline Gamblin, Karsten Kristensen, Geert Meun,and Euan Dunn.

2 Report of the Last Meeting

2.1 The Rapporteur presented the report of the last ExCom meeting, held inStockholm on the 23rd and 24th September 2014. The report was approved.

2.2 Lorna Duguid reported on progress of actions from the last meeting:

Michael Park and Christine Absil were re-elected as the ExCom vice-chairs.


The three Working Group Chairs were re-elected (Demersal WG,Barrie Deas; Skagerrak and Kattegat WG, Carl Jesper Hermansen;Spatial Planning WG, Euan Dunn).

The bid from Loughine Ltd (Dr Tony Hawkins) for rapporteur duties andthe bid from Elle Dee (Lorna Duguid) for the Secretariat role wereaccepted.

The draft Work Plan for 2015 was agreed and had been passed to theGeneral Assembly for approval.

The draft Budget for 2014-15 was approved.

A draft paper on Fishing Opportunities for 2015 was approved and wasforwarded to the Commission on the 26th September.

A draft advice paper on a Fishing Plan for the Farne Deeps was notagreed. However, a revised version went forward to the DWG meetingand was approved on the 4th February and then submitted to theCommission following submission of the draft Nephrops Long TermManagement Plan.

A Focus Group to consider the Landing Obligation had met on the 7th

and 8th of October to prepare draft advice that had then beenconsidered at the February DWG meeting.

Members had attended meetings of the Scheveningen Group.

Funding had been sought for a focus group on the North Sea StockSurveys. However no EMF funding has been allocated for internationalprojects. National Projects have not yet been launched.

A meeting of the Pulse Fishing Focus Group had taken place onNovember 17th.

The NWWAC is keen to cooperate on joint workshop on sea bass weare working with them to agree a suitable date A response fromCommission on sea bass had been non-committal regarding thepublication of measures.

A small balanced group had been proposed for considering the issuesarising from the draft advice paper on the Management of Cod.However, it was agreed at the DWG that comments on cod would beincorporated into advice on the Mixed Fishery LTMP.

2.3 David Anderson asked what the difference was between a Focus Group and aDrafting Group. Lorna Duguid replied that all sub-groups were Focus groups,and they met to discuss topics and then draft papers. The group that had metin London to discuss the Landing Obligation had drafted papers on phasingand exemptions and had been forwarded these to the DWG. Niels Wichmannasked Lorna to produce a short paper on the different groups and theirfunctions. The final group for approving documents was always the ExecutiveCommittee but sometimes the Commission did look at our draft papers, boththrough attending meetings and seeing them on the NSAC website.


2.4 Jan Willem Wijnstroom asked about the time frame for the sea bass workshop.Also, who would be leading it? A report was required as soon as possible.Lorna Duguid replied that it would be held sometime after the next NWWACmeeting on the 20/21st April and the aim was to have the meeting as quickly aspossible. Members would be updated on the date of this meeting.

3 Scheveningen Group Update3.1 There are three different levels of Scheveningen Group meetings. The High

Level Group consists of the directors of fisheries departments within the NorthSea Member States. We attend those meetings item-by-item, if invited. Wehave attempted to draw up a Memorandum of Understanding with that groupbut they have rejected our overtures. We still aspire to attend the entiremeeting. The Technical Group consists of administrators. Again we attend onlypart of the meeting. The Control Group meets to discuss control issues – wehave no direct membership of that, but keep in touch with developmentsthrough national representatives.

3.2 We had presented our advice on the phasing of the Landing Obligation, arrivedat by majority decision (with a minority position described) to the High LevelGroup. The paper had proposed phasing species-by-species, breaking theclusters of species provided in Article 15 of the basic regulation. The high levelgroup had told us that this approach was not possible. It had to be an approachbased on defined fisheries. We had subsequently considered a hybridapproach and had discussed a draft paper setting this out at the last DWGmeeting. However, the DWG had concluded that the hybrid approach wouldonly lead to confusion and that we would stand by our original advicesupporting a species-by-species approach. That decision had been recorded ina further draft document: with the minority positions appended.

3.3 The NSAC position had been described to the High Level Group, when it metwith the NSAC in Paris on 17th February. It had been surprising at that meetingthat the Commission had indicated that the unfinished, unadopted NSAC hybridpaper could provide the basis for a workable approach to implementing thelandings obligation. However, the Technical Group was now working on ametier-by-metier approach. It is intended that the Technical Group will nowmeet every month to consider the options. We will await their proposals and willcomment upon them in due course.

3.4 Barrie Deas added that the Scheveningen Group at the Copenhagen meetingon 25th February appeared not to be making much progress on phasing, and ondefining the fisheries. An approach based on the various fisheries definedunder the cod management plan seemed a likely outcome. Pim Visserwondered about consistency of our approach with the deliberations of theNWW Group. They had put forward a discard plan to be activated in 2016.Barrie replied that attempts were being made by some Member States toachieve coherence, but only time would tell. The NWW group had chosen to


adopt a fisheries approach, and wanted individual fishers to define whichfishery they were pursuing. This might be done on a trip-by-trip basis, using theclusters defined in the basic regulation. Defining the fisheries is probably themost important decision to be taken at this stage. We have to follow thesedevelopments closely.

3.5 Michael Park said that a major consideration is what will be put in place by2016. Kenn Skau Fischer thought that the Member States within theScheveningen Group did not seem to have adopted a common approach. Theyhaven’t even agreed on what they have agreed! The High Level Group had toldus that we cannot break away from the clusters listed in the basic regulation,but in fact this is what some Member States were now suggesting should bedone. They are proposing that the cod cluster and the plaice/sole clustershould be broken up. Michael Park added that the NWW technical group hadinitially reached an overall consensus but now that they were consideringthings in greater detail all sorts of problems are arising. They may need torefocus.

3.6 Pim Visser thought that control and enforcement was the key issue. What hadhappened at the last meeting of the Control Group in Vigo? Niels Wichmannreplied that the Administrative Board of the Control Agency, which meets withthe Commission, has only one observer present, representing all the AdvisoryCouncils. He had been that representative but all that they had discussed hadbeen the administration of the Control Agency. There is also an AdvisoryBoard, with representatives from all the Advisory Councils. There had been aseminar on experiences with the Landing Obligation, which had taken placebefore the Administrative Board meeting, but the Advisory Councils’ observerhad not been allowed to attend. Another seminar is to take place on the 24/25th

June to which we will be invited. We can discuss the control issues with themthen.

3.7 John Anderson suggested that it had been a mistake to present our secondadvice paper on phasing to the Scheveningen Group, if in fact it had beenpresented. Barrie Deas replied that this had not been a mistake, as the NSAChad not at any point presented the hybrid paper. The paper was a draft thathad been prepared for the DWG meeting. That approach to phasing hadsubsequently been rejected by the DWG in favour of returning to a species-by-species approach. The Commission had seen our draft, and had suggested tothe Scheveningen Group that the hybrid approach discussed in the paper mightbe worked upon further. Michael Park added that the Commission had usedour draft as an example of an approach that might work. Did the Commissionthink it was appropriate to take up an approach outlined in a draft paper thathad later been rejected by the NSAC?

3.8 Edgars Goldmanis had not been at the meeting but he thought the Commissionhad simply presented the paper as a draft that might contain useful ideas. Itwas not the official position of the Commission. Niels Wichmann said that we


had made it clear to the Scheveningen Group that the paper presented nolonger set out the position taken by the NSAC.

3.9 Pim Visser wondered whether we could split our website into papers accessibleto all, and papers only accessible to members. Niels pointed out that theCommission and Member States were effectively members of the NSAC andwe could not hide papers from them. Sam Stone wondered whether we shouldleave the NSAC logo off papers that had not been approved by the ExecutiveCommittee. However, it is already customary however for draft papers to beclearly marked as such, and to include a note stating that the paper is not yetadvice from the NSAC. That may be sufficient. Lorna Duguid was asked to lookinto the various options.

3.10 Irene Kingma asked whether there is a drafting group working on the controlissues arising from the Landing Obligation. Niels replied that there are differentregional Control Groups that are working on the control issues in their regionalareas. The Commission has also asked Member States to comment on theearlier control regulation and how it has functioned, with a review to revising it.However, the NSAC does not have any formal links with these control groups.The Landing Obligation will require logbooks to be implemented after each haulin future, whereas under the control regulation they are completed each day.We do have strong grounds for wishing to engage with these control groups.

4 Demersal Working Group Update

4.1 Barrie Deas reported that the Demersal Working Group had met inCopenhagen on the 4th February 2015. The main item discussed was theimplementation of the Landing Obligation. The current position is that theScheveningen High Level Group is going to ask the Commission for guidanceon the breaking of the clusters, and on quota uplift. The DWG will be keepingan eye on developments with respect to these issues. In the meantime theDWG has produced a revision of its advice paper on exemptions to the LandingObligation for consideration today by the Executive Committee.

4.2 A paper has been circulated from the eNGOs on quota distribution and theimplementation of Article 17 of the basic regulation. This will be discussed atthe DWG at its April meeting. Barrie reported that the UK High Court hadrecently rejected a legal challenge by Greenpeace to the English quotaallocation system. Greenpeace had claimed that the system did not complywith Article 17. However, the High Court had rejected the claim and ruled thatthe current quota system did meet the requirements of Article 17.

4.3 Draft advice had been produced by Danish fishers in response to theCommission’s proposals for a new framework for technical measures in thereformed CFP. Their draft advice paper had been discussed by the DWG,


revised, and the revised version commented upon by different parties. Thepaper was on the table for approval today.

4.4. A Mixed Fishery Focus Group had met yesterday to consider a draft advicepaper on the Commission’s proposals for the development of a Mixed FisheryPlan for the North Sea Demersal Fisheries. Because of increasing cod biomassthere is probably no longer a need to treat cod as a special case, as proposedby the original paper. The group had worked on the text and a new draft,incorporating the changes that had been discussed, would be available nextweek for further comment. It would then be adopted through written procedure.

4.5 The Pulse Fishing Focus Group had recently met, and the Brown ShrimpFocus group had been re-established. Both subjects were on the agenda fortoday. It was also intended that the NSAC would work with the NWWAC onmeasures for the management of sea bass.

5 Technical Measures

5.1 A response by the North Sea Advisory Council to the Commission’s proposalfor the Development of a New Framework for Technical Measures in theReformed CFP had been prepared, discussed and then revised. The ExecutiveCommittee adopted the revised paper without further change. It would now besubmitted to the Commission.

6 Implementation of the Landing Obligation

6.1 A paper on the Implementation of the EU Landings Obligation for the DemersalFisheries of the North Sea: Exemptions & Other Issues had been prepared.Comments on the paper had been received following the DWG and a revisedversion of the paper prepared for adoption. There were some queries with theadoption process of this paper, as Stella Nemecky had asked for writtenprocedure in the last meeting. As the paper was not circulated as agreed (seemeeting report 4th of February 2015 - point 5.9), both Samuel Stone and StellaNemecky wished to submit late comments, making further changes to thepaper. They were asked to go through their points.

6.2 Samuel Stone wished to insert a minority statement on behalf of the MarineConservation Society with respect to establishing a minimum benchmark forsurvivability. The MCS understands that different fisheries will have differentfactors influencing post capture survival and therefore wide ranging survivabilityrates, but believes that a minimum standard should be set, which would be thesame for all species. The MCS believes this would help make decisions for


high survivability more objective. Michael Andersen responded that thescientific advice from STECF had been that is not possible simply to select asingle percentage survival value and apply this to all species. Stella Nemeckywished to join this minority position. It was agreed that a footnote would beinserted, stating the minority position of the MCS and WWF.

6.3 The MCS also objected to the proposal to harmonise the MCRS values forNephrops between the Skagerrak/Kattegat and the North Sea at the level ofthe North Sea. It would make more sense to harmonize both regions MCRS ata length corresponding to the length at maturity. Currently in the North Sea, theMLS is below the length at maturity for male nephrops. So harmonization atlength at maturity would mean a small increase for North Sea and a reductionfor the Skagerrak/Kattegat. Stella Nemecky of the WWF agreed and JanWillem Wijnstroom of the EAA agreed. Indeed, they would like to set the MCRSfor all species at or above the length at which they reached maturity. It wasagreed that this would be inserted as a minority position. Jan WillemWijnstroom also asked that sea bass be added to the list in paragraph 2.6 ofspecies potentially eligible for exemption subject to defined conditions. Therewas no objection to this.

6.4 Christine Absil was concerned that these late comments from the eNGOs hadnot received full consideration before the meeting. She would like everyone’scomments to have been considered earlier. Niels Wichmann said that wewould make that point in the report of this meeting. We will also discuss theprocedures for agreeing on papers at the next meeting of the NSAC Directors.

6.5 Antony Viera also wished to raise points on behalf of Caroline Gamblin ofCNPMEM. Caroline objected to paragraph 5.2 suggesting the harmonisation ofMCRS levels across the North Sea. French fishers thought it was too early toseek changes in designated landing sizes. It was agreed that a footnote wouldbe inserted saying that this proposal was not supported by the CPNMEM.

6.6 Caroline also objected to paragraph 3.6, on disproportionate handling costs.Niels Wichmann said that we should keep this paragraph as it was but recordCaroline’s dissent in the report of the Executive Committee meeting.

6.7 Stella Nemecky objected to paragraph 5.2 suggesting the harmonisation ofMCRS values across the North Sea at the lowest level of the two sizes.

6.8 It was agreed that the Landing Obligation Exemptions paper would now berevised to reflect these discussions, noting the minority positions. It will then beadopted.

7 Commission Proposals for a Mixed Fishery Plan


7.1 A Focus Group had met yesterday to discuss the draft advice to theCommission on its proposals for a Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Seademersal fisheries. The Commission had announced that it would be holdinganother seminar on this subject, and we looked forward to participating. BarrieDeas noted that further scientific work is taking place with respect to differentmanagement scenarios. We had heard from Chris Darby on the ICES adviceand from Steve Mackinson on the options considered under the GAP2programme. There was also the DEMARA project taking place in the CelticSea, and we have asked the NWWAC to keep us up-to-date on developmentswithin that project. We need to keep a close eye on these scientificdevelopments, as we needed to provide input into the management optionsbeing examined by the scientific models.

7.2 Jan Willem Wijnstroom asked whether there would be another meeting of theFocus Group. Barrie replied that the next stage would be to revise our initialadvice paper and circulate the new draft. The draft would be sent out on the16th March. Comments would be invited before the end of March. The paperwill be recirculated on April 3rd for approval at the Demersal Working Groupmeeting on the 14th April. The Commission’s deadline for a response to theconsultation paper was the 3rd May. The paper sets out our own advice. TheCommission’s new consultation paper now asks a series of questions on whichthey are seeking answers. We will need to consider those questions in the lightof our advice paper, perhaps through the formation of a small sub-group, andthen consider producing a second paper. One important factor to consider willbe the involvement of Norway, as ultimately it will have to agree to any TACproposals coming forward for the North Sea.

7.3 Samuel Stone suggested that the discussion of Productivity/SusceptibilityAnalysis (PSA) in the paper might mention the application of this method toeffects on benthic fauna. Michael Andersen and others were against that. Theythought we should simply keep our eye on these new scientific developments.The Rapporteur said that PSA was a method of risk analysis that could beapplied to many different problems. At this stage it would be sufficient to simplystate that fact.

8 Nephrops Focus Group Update

8.1 Michael Park reported that the draft Nephrops Long Term Management Planhad now been submitted to the Commission, together with a paper discussinga fishing plan for the Farne Deeps. We were now awaiting comments from theCommission and STECF. He thanked everyone who had contributed, overmany years to the Plan. In response to a question from Samuel Stone, Michaelexplained that the Farne Deeps paper was simply providing an example of theapplication of a fishing plan within the wider context of the Long Term Plan. It


was now for the Commission to consider it as an example of the way forward.When new scientific advice was available for the different Functional Units, andSTECF had commented on the ideas we had presented, we might look moreclosely at the provision of definitive advice for the Farne Deeps.

9 Pulse Fishing Focus Group Update

9.1 Peter Breckling reported on progress with the Pulse Fishing Focus Group.There had been two meetings, and a WEBEX discussion. Scientists and DutchGovernment representatives had been involved in both meetings. There havesince been bilateral discussions within the group to clarify particularsuggestions. A number of documents had been prepared. Paper 4.4 for thismeeting highlights the risks from pulse fishing and reaches some conclusionsabout these. Future needs for research have also been listed.

9.2 The paper points out that the procedures for introducing new fishing gears andtechnologies are not entirely clear within the EU in relation to general criteriafor licensing and allocation of licenses in European waters. Some members ofthe group had not been happy with the large number of licences issued toDutch fishers for pulse fishing and had recommended that there should be nofurther allocation of Dutch licenses in the North Sea until a full evaluation of theresearch and monitoring programme had been carried out.

9.3 Heather Hamilton added that there had not yet been time to discuss “bestpractice” in relation to public consultation and information gathering on theintroduction of new gears, especially in relation to Natura 2000 legislation. Inher view the introduction of pulse fishing in a Natura 2000 site would be subjectto the rules for “appropriate assessment” under Article 6.3 of the HabitatsDirective1. Samuel Stone also thought that the paper should point out that theintroduction of any new gear or fishery needs to be assessed for its effects.Peter Breckling pointed out that this was only a discussion paper, and thatdealing with Natura 2000 issues was a controversial issue within the group.Pim Visser said that there does need to be an assessment, as following a courtcase any new gear is regarded as a “new project” and has to be assessed forits effects under the Natura 2000 legislation. Peter Breckling agreed thatNatura 2000 is currently clear on fisheries management issues, but DGEnvironment is about to modify the methods of assessment and the futureposition is not yet clear. Heather Hamilton thought that section 4 of theconclusion for the paper did need to be modified to say pulse fishing as anyother gear can only be allowed within Natura 2000 MPAs in compliance withthe applicable legislation.

1 Under the EU Habitats Directive an appropriate assessment is required for newprojects/plans to assess possible negative impacts on Natura 2000 sites


9.4 Christine Absil was unhappy with the restrictions placed on the issue of Dutchlicenses in the North Sea. This still allowed other countries to submit requestsfor licences but prevented the Dutch from doing so. It was pointed out thatother countries like the UK and Belgium might wish to acquire licences for theirvessels to fish with pulse gears. Member States can allocate up to 5% of theirlicences to new gears. However, the Dutch had already allocated 24%,exceeding the normal limit. We could not restrict Member States’ rights underexisting legislation.

9.5 It was agreed that 3 weeks would be allowed for written comments on the pulsefishing paper. Then a WEBEX would be held to discuss and agree a finalversion of the document. Comments should be submitted to the Secretariat.

10 Spatial Planning Working Group Update

10.1 A meeting on the 11th November had discussed a paper on stakeholderengagement in spatial planning. There had been very close discussions withForewind on their Dogger Bank proposals. Forewind had now been givenplanning consent for their wind farm developments. Creyke Beck will be thefirst stage of development in the Dogger Bank Zone. Creyke Beck A will belocated in the southern part of the designated area. Creyke Beck B will belocated in the western part of the area, and will be larger. These constitute thelargest renewable energy development ever to receive planning consent in theUK.

10.2 There is disappointment that the development of a Dogger Bank fisheriesmanagement plan has been delayed, and the Working Group was not able todiscuss this topic further. Everything has stalled because of differences ofopinion between the three Member States (Germany, Denmark and the UK).They may now each produce their own fisheries management plans.

10.3 We may need to reflect on the future of the Spatial Planning Working Groupand to decide the nature of the advice that the group is required to give to theNSAC. Members are invited to send suggestions to Euan Dunn on issues theywould like the group to discuss. There are also opportunities for new membersto join this group. Pim Visser pointed out that discussions on the Dogger Bankissues had now calmed down but some new Belgian proposals were comingforward that would need to be discussed by the group.

11 Skagerrak & Kattegat Working Group Update


11.1 The Working Group had met on March 6th. Participants had considered theoutcome of the EU/Norway negotiations from February, at which the NSAC hadbeen represented. The following issues had then been discussed:

A long-term management plan was being developed for shrimps, withprovision for real-time closures and technical rules

Some cross-border control problems had been identified. However,Danish and Swedish fishers thought there were few problems and therules did not need to change

The implementation of the Landing Obligation is going to be verycomplicated in the Skagerrak

There has been an explosion in the numbers of cod in the Kattegat anddiscarding is taking place

There is on-going discussion of closed areas in the Kattegat

There are continuing pollution problems from a Swedish factory in theKattegat and legal proceedings will commence in June

12 ICES Update

12.1 Cristina Morgado presented an update from ICES, including an overview of theplans for 2015. The ICES calendar is now available. Cristina’s presentationwould also be made available on the NSAC website, with appropriate links. TheNorth Sea Benchmark meeting reports would soon be available for North Seacod, red mullet and sole. Much of the ICES advice is recurrent. Amongst thenon-recurrent advice being considered are:

DG Environment requests relating to the MSFD

Fmsy ranges

By-catch of cetaceans

Vulnerable marine habitats

Monitoring of plastic particles

Other developments included:

Work on data-limited stocks


Providing Fmsy proxies

Criteria for frequency of the assessments without compromisingquality (there is a big problem with the workload)

Manual on Landing Obligation survival rates

New format for ICES advice. Popular advice sheets will be available inthe future.

Benchmarks for 2016 would include:

Sandeel

Dab

Witch

Whiting

North Sea saithe

Nephrops in the Skagerrak and Kattegat

Nephrops in the Norwegian Deeps

If NSAC representatives wished to attend these benchmark meetings we wouldneed to inform the ICES Secretariat. If anyone has data that they would like tobe put forward then it can be sent for consideration at the data compilationworkshops that will take place at the end of the year.

12.2 A meeting is planned in April to consider the Landing Obligation SurvivalGuidelines, setting out advice on the conduct of survival experiments. Amanual should be available by the end of the year.

12.3 The new format of ICES advice will address fisheries issues; integrate withecosystem advice; introduce simplification; seek multiple communicationavenues; and achieve greater efficiency. For each ecosystem there will beecosystem overviews, taking the next steps towards an ecosystem approach tofisheries.

12.4 Jan Willem Wijnstroom asked whether ICES advice on by-catch species wouldinclude salmon and sea trout. The answer was no, it would not.


13 EDF Discard Reduction Guide

13.1 Erik Lindebo of the Environmental Defense Fund introduced a forthcomingpublication: the EDF EU Discard Reduction Guide. One of the most pressingand topical issues is how to meet the requirements of the Landing Obligation,which requires fishermen to land, record and account for all catch. The Guideoutlines a number of smart quota and selectivity tools to help implement theLanding Obligation. It also features case studies demonstrating the possibilityof reducing discarding while maintaining profitability. The Guide is notprescriptive; rather, it discusses different options that can be tailored to thediverse circumstances of fisheries in EU waters.

13.2 Examples are given in the Guide of successful actions to reduce discards. Oneof these is the Pacific Whiting Conservation Project. A combination of bothquota and selectivity tools provides a real opportunity to secure improvedflexibility, innovation and economic performance, while at the same timeenabling industry to meet stringent environmental targets, both at EU andnational level. It is essential that these tools are combined with effectivemonitoring and enforcement to ensure fishermen can achieve full accountabilityand prove compliance with the rules through fully documented fisheries. TheGuide will be available in the near future.

13.3 Peter Breckling thought that it seemed to be a worthwhile use of U.S. charitablefunds to produce such a guide, but it might not introduce any new ideas toEuropean fishers. Pim Visser believed the Guide would be useful but it seemedto concentrate on regulatory issues, rather than achieving better selectivity. Forexample, what could be done to separate sole and plaice, which is a majorproblem? Erik Lindebo would look at this.

14 Feedback from Meetings Attended

14.1 Pim Visser had attended a meeting on wind farms organised by the North SeaCommission. There had been some discussion of the need for an AdvisoryCouncil involving sectors other than fisheries. The North Sea InterregProgramme may have funding for this.

14.2 Samuel Stone and Irene Kingma had attended an ICES Workshop on MSFDDescriptor 3, which requires populations of all commercially exploited fish andshellfish to be within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and sizedistribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. Three criteria were beingconsidered:

Under D3 there are 3 criterion which need to be assessed individually and metin order to reach Good Environmental Status by 2020. These are:


3.1 Level of pressure of the fishing activity3.2 Reproductive capacity of the stock-3.3 Population age and size distribution

Indicators for the first two of these are already operational: Fmsy for fishingpressure; and MSY Btrigger for reproductive capacity. For 3.3 – age and sizedistribution, there is no current indicator in use and the primary aim of thisworkshop was to further consider/review the potential candidates for thiscriterion.

A number of potential candidates had been put forward at previous workshops,and it was decided that most of these should be tested and evaluated througha series of technical workshops (in a process similar to the process used forbenchmarking stocks). A technical workshop is proposed to be held in Lisbonin October not yet confirmed).This means it is unlikely that indicators will be putin place for at least another 12 months. It is possible that different indicators willbe adopted in different regions.

A formal version of the meeting report should be available next week.

14.3 Pim Visser said that monitoring programmes for these indicators weresupposed to be in place by now, even though the benchmarks had not beendecided yet. Irene thought that in some cases the descriptors themselves mightprovide the indicators. Pim Visser emphasised that the impact of the Directiveon the day-to-day activities of fishermen ought to be taken into account.Fishermen have to fish selectively in order avoid catching small fish. Now itwas likely that they will have to fish selectively to avoid large fish!

15 NSAC Participation in Research Projects

GAP 2

15.1 Michael Park had attended a meeting in Barcelona, where different workgroups had been formed, some of them including fishers and fishery managers.Everyone agreed that fishers needed to be at the heart of participation infisheries management. The meeting had been useful and participants had beenenthusiastic but it was now necessary to build on that enthusiasm and use it tobring about change. The GAP2 project was now almost complete. There wouldnot be a GAP 3 project. .

MAREFRAME


15.2 Lorna Duguid had attended the annual meeting of MAREFRAME in Aberdeen.The project was trying to develop an ecosystem approach to managingfisheries. The project was still at an early stage and although much referencehad been made to involving stakeholders there were no fishers present. We doneed to become involved in this project, perhaps through John Pope who leadsthe North Sea component. We would be inviting John to attend the nextDemersal Working Group meeting.

MYFISH

15.4 Anna Rindorf of DTU Aqua (Denmark) is the project scientific coordinator of theMYFISH project, which is addressing MSY problems. They had been workingon MSY ranges rather than points for the North Sea, and were also very activein considering the multi-annual plan for the North Sea. A project meeting isbeing held in Majorca in 2 weeks time and a symposium is planned for Athensin October. The project was grateful to the NSAC for its support

DISCARDLESS

15.5 Clara Ulrich gave an update on the DISCARDLESS project, which providedscientific support for the Landing Obligation. The MINIDISC project was aimedat reducing discards in Danish fisheries. Fourteen vessels were involved in thestudy. The data were currently being processed. Some fishers had beenswitching mesh sizes to avoid discards while others were seeking highcreativity solutions. Each vessel had its own strategy. Work will continue untilthe end of June. The full DISCARDLESS programme was developingstrategies for the gradual elimination of discards in European fisheries. It hadstarted on the 1st of March with 31 partners in 12 different countries. Theproject aims to develop new science, but is also collecting and sharingknowledge developed locally/nationally. Discards Mitigation Strategies (DMS)are being developed, compared and disseminated. Marine Scotland Science(Coby Needle) is coordinating a meeting in Bilbao on April 22nd and anyoneinterested in attending should put their names forward.

15.6 Simon Collins pointed out that in 90% of fisheries the actual quotas were out ofphase with the abundance of fish. This was the central problem leading todiscarding, and yet the DISCARDLESS project was not addressing this. Clarareplied that the project was considering where science could make adifference. Several people from the NSAC did want to attend the meeting,which coincided with a NWWAC meeting in Bilbao.


16 Finance Reports

16.1 Lorna Duguid commented on the reports. The budget was overspent in someareas but the overspend will cancel out over the financial year. Some additionalexpenses had been incurred on Internet connections. The audited accounts forthe previous year had been circulated and submitted to the Commission. Onthe deficit, there were two outstanding payments to be made and then thedeficit would be cleared.

17 Membership

17.1 An application from BLUEFISH to join the NSAC General Assembly had beenaccepted by the Member States members. The application was approved bythe Executive Committee.. A problem had been encountered over theEuropean Transport Workers Federation, where membership had beenredefined by the EC; they had to be transferred from the “others” group to theFishing Industry group. We now had one member too many in the latter group.The European Association of Fishing Ports and Auctions had not paid theirmembership fees nor attended recent meetings, and it was agreed that theywould be withdrawn from the membership.

18 Next Meeting of the ExCom

18.1 The next meeting of the ExCom will take place on the 19th June in Edinburgh.

19 Any Other Business

19.1 Guus Pastoor provided information on the setting up of the new MarketAdvisory Council (to be set up at the same time as a new Aquaculture AdvisoryCouncil). The Council would focus on all aspects of marketing seafood acrossEurope. An application was currently going forward to the Commission, butthere were challenges in obtaining the requisite 60:40 representation ratio onthe Council. A stakeholder meeting will be held within the next 2 months.Anyone interested in joining the Council should contact AIPCE (the EuropeanFish Processors Association).

19.2 Lorna Duguid emphasised the importance of registering for NSAC meetings ingood time. In future participation will be closed 4 working days before themeeting to ensure that there is space for all those wishing to attend.


19.3 Pim Visser, on behalf of Euan Dunn said that there was a need for rules andcriteria on reporting from NSAC members representing the NSAC at externalmeetings. Niels Wichmann said that this topic had been discussed at theDirectors meeting held that morning and it had been agreed that a templatewould be prepared.

19.4 The meeting closed at 3.30 pm with the Chairman thanking the interpreters fortheir work.


Action Points

Action Responsible

1. A short paper will be prepared on the different NSAC groupsand their functions (2.3)

Secretariat

2. Members will be informed in due course on the date andlocation of a proposed meeting with the NWWAC on seabass (2.4)

Secretariat

3. The NSAC will look at the different options for markingpapers to make it clear that they are drafts and not finalNSAC advice (3.9)

Secretariat

4. A paper from the eNGOs on quota distribution and theimplementation of Article 17 of the basic regulation will bediscussed by the DWG at its April meeting (4.2)

eNGOsSecretariat

5. The revised paper from the NSAC commenting on theCommission’s proposal for the Development of a NewFramework for Technical Measures in the Reformed CFPwas adopted without further change. It will now besubmitted to the Commission (5.1)

Secretariat

6. The draft NSAC paper on Implementation of the EULandings Obligation for the Demersal Fisheries of theNorth Sea: Exemptions & Other Issues, will be revised toinclude minority positions as footnotes. The paper wasadopted and will now be submitted to the Commission(6.3; 6.5; 6.7).

RapporteurSecretariat

7. Procedures for agreeing papers in writing will be discussedat the next meeting of NSAC Directors (6.4)

SecretariatDirectors

8. The draft advice paper on a mixed fishery plan for the NorthSea demersal fisheries will be sent out on the 16th Marchfor comment before the end of March. The paper will berecirculated on April 3rd for approval at the DemersalWorking Group meeting on the 14th April (7.2).

RapporteurMembersSecretariat

9. The Commission’s new consultation paper on a mixedfishery plan now asks a series of questions. Thosequestions will be considered separately by a small group,and a second advice paper developed if necessary (7.2).

ChairmanSecretariat

10. Three weeks will be allowed for written comments on thedraft NSAC Pulse Fishing Paper. Then a WEBEX will beheld to discuss and agree a final version of the document.Comments should be submitted to the Secretariat (9.5)

MembersSecretariat

11. Members are invited to send suggestions to Euan Dunn on Members


Attendance

Surname First Name Organisation

Absil Christine Seas at Risk

Andersen Michael Danish Fishermen

Andersen Svend Erik Danish Fishermen

Anderson David AFPO

Anderson John SFO

Bentsen Siri Danish AgriFish Agency

Breckling Peter Deutscher Fischerei-Verband

Brouckaert Emiel Rederscentrale CV

Collins Simon SFF

Dachicourt Bruno ETWF

Deas Barrie NFFO

issues they would like the Spatial Planning Working Groupto discuss. New members may submit requests to join thisgroup (10.3).

Euan Dunn

12. NSAC representatives wishing to attend the ICESbenchmark meetings will need to inform ICES through theNSAC Secretariat. (12.1)

MembersSecretariat

13. Eric Lindebo of EDF will look at sources of advice onseparating sole from plaice (13.3).

Eric Lindebo

14. The NSAC will be inviting John Pope from theMAREFRAME Project to attend the next DemersalWorking Group meeting (15.2)

Secretariat

15. Anyone interested in attending the DISCARDLESSmeeting to be held in Bilbao on April 22nd should put theirnames forward through the NSAC Secretariat (15.5).

MembersSecretariat

16. The European Association of Fishing Ports and Auctionsmembership of the NSAC would be withdrawn. (17.1).

Secretariat


Doeksen Anne Seas at Risk

Duguid Lorna NSAC

Fischer Kenn Skau Danish Fishermen

Goldmanis Edgars European Commission

Hamilton Heather Client Earth

Hawkins Tony NSAC

Kingma Irene Dutch Elasmobranch Society

Lindberg Fredrik Swedish Fishermen’s Federation

Lindebo Erik EDF

Locker Arnold NFFO

Morgado Cristina ICES

Nemecky Stella WWF

Nielsen Jakob Munkhoej Danish Ministry

Norlenius Jan Swedish Fishermen’s Federation

Park Michael SFF

Pastoor Guus AIPCE/CEP

Pederson Søren Anker Marine Ingredients Denmark

Rindorf Anna DTU Aqua

Stavnes Camilla Løvaas North Sea Commission

Stride Frank SFO

Stone Samuel MCS

Ulrich Clara DTU Aqua

Viera Antony CNPMEM


Visser Pim VisNed

Wichmann Niels Chairman and Danish Fishermen

Wijnstroom Jan Willem European Anglers’ Alliance

The North Sea Advisory Council NSAC...2015/03/11 · Page 1 NSAC Supported by The European...

Documents

Transcript of The North Sea Advisory Council NSAC...2015/03/11 · Page 1 NSAC Supported by The European...